The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1887-11-18


tion Of the church, is conclusive evidence that
1t was understood they were not to be held
In the church
The Master finds and the evidence sup
ports his report, that the Lutheran congre. !
cation as before stated has at all times |
hitherto enjoyed Its privilege of worship
on its allotted day, and that II has not been |
prevented from holding Sunday schools
on any day when by the arrangement the
building was TO be occupied by the Luther
ans. The complaint upon the injunction
part OF the bill then is that they have been
prevented on some three Sundays from
holding Sunday school on what was
known as the German Reformed day.
They were warned in writing on the 10th
day of July 1888 not to have Sunday school
on the German Reformed day unless it was
for Union Sunday school But the Lu,h-
erans, very properly, desired to hold only
distinctive Lutheran Sunday school. This
was their right, but 1t was equally the
right of the German Reformed congrega
tion to object to Lutheran Sunday school
fore confirm that part of the masters re-
port in which he holds that the defendants
deprived the plaintiff Of no right by ex-
Guiding them from holding Sunday schools
on the days when they were prevented
from doing so. 1t is suggested in argu-
ment that the plaintiffs have acquired
rights by user This claim has no support
in the facts. The first Sunday school was
held In the school house in 1882. In 1888
notice was given as before stated. In 1885
the German Reformed officers for some
three Sundays prevented the holding OF
Sunday schools on their day. The claim
now set up has been protested against
from the first, it was first made within two
years preceding the filing of this.bill, and
has neither contract, length of time nor
undisturbed enjoyment for its support.
A word more on this subject. This is a
question simply in regard to the right Of
property and therefore, however desirable
to have Sunday school for the religious in
structions of the youth of the congregation
the rights of others cannot legally be en-
CT cached upon for the accomplishment OF
such purpose.
Evidence was given before the master In
regard to removing the portable organ be-
longing to the congregations from before
the chapcel to the gallery and from the val
lery to the chancel but as this is mere mat
ter of taste and is the cause ct no serious
difficulty, do not think that the Court
should be called upon to decide whether
the gallery or the chancel shall be the place
of permanent location.
The master reports that the counsel
for the plaintiffs withdrew all questions
\ in regard to the removal of the organ.
This is denied in an exception to the
report. But, as there is nothing before
the Court to dispute the statement of the
: master, we must receive that as the fact.
In respect to the allegation that the
church building is out of repair and thai
the defendant church refuses to contribute
to repairs, the report of the master is, to the
effect, that both congregations are negligent
in this respect, we are of the opinion tina
upon that ground neither congregation car
Invoke relief from Court of Equity.
In respect to the occupancy of the build
, ing by the Lutherans for the purpose OF {
Sunday school on the alternate Sunday al
lotted to that congregation, there is som'
: Inconsistency on the part of the German Ne
, formed side of the question. By the notice
II July 1888 the Lutherans were required
, not to hold Sunday school on the Reformed
day. At meeting in August 1884, intend
: ed az a joint meeting of the congregation
t of which notice was not regularly given tt
8 the Lutheran congregation, and at which
5 but few Lutherans attended, it was resolved
that NO sectarian Sunday school should b
: held in the church. In the third para
: graph of the answer of the defendants the,
i deny the right of the plaintiff congre
y cation to establish and maintain Sunda.
= schools in the church building
: In the seventh paragraph Of the answe
c they say 'that neith, on the 18th day of Jul
p 1886 nor at a0y other time or times did W
deny the privilege OF the Ev. Lutherars
: plaintiffs, to use the building on each altel
g nate Sunday for public worship or the us
|
C In the conclusion of the answer the praye
g is 'to be restored to our rightful exclusiv
l. use, possession and occupancy of the sal
e church building on every alternate Sunda
az before the intrusion of the plaintiffs"
d The master reports that con the argumer
of this case before me the solicitor of tn
d defendant withdrew all opposition and oil
" lection to the use OF the church by tn
e Lutheran Sunday school upon the Luthera
y Sunday. Therefore the question of the
't right to use the church upon that day al
n not called upon to dispose Of" This COT
y clusion Of the master is excepted to, ne
'r because 1t does not state the fact correctly
but because "all right to maintain Sunda
Is school at all were denied by the third pari
h graph of the answer, the master ought III
u der the evidence to have reported in a,
le cordance with said paragraph"
H. On referring to the evidence taken by III
Or stenographer and reported by the master,
le find that Rev. j. II. Neiman being on th
r stand as witness he was asked "Can th
OF plaintiff as pastor and officer of the Evan
ty gelcal Lutheran church conform to tl
d, regulations and discipline of the gener
m council nnlsss they establish and maintain
le Sunday school in which are taught tn
r doctrines OF that church, ana use the le
er son leaves and papers, as published an
t. recommended by church authority"
,g To that question counsel for defendal
10 object '2. Because the establishment al
% maintenance of Sunday school especial
for the teaching of the doctrines of tn
as church on the several Sundays when by Il
Is custom Of the congregation, the plaintiff
y, occupied the church building for Diyin
It, Services has never been and Is not now oil
is jected to by the defendants"
" have quoted the above at length
H. show that the master committed no err
to in repeating that before him, opposition
II the holding OF Sunday schools by Il
@ Lutherans on their day for worship, wa
it. at least for all purposes Of this case, aban
CHI oned In the face OF all this, il he sa
On anything In reference to the rights Of Il
q H.. 4. a.